Comment on Jefferson’s plan for public education,
particularly on what his plan says about what TJ saw as the purpose of
education. How do Jefferson’s aims
compare to Mann’s aims? Feel free to
also consider the plans’ shortcomings, but do your best to keep things in
historical perspective.
Thomas Jefferson saw the role of Education as way to happiness and lifelong learning. His tiers of education, at the basic level, were meant to give citizens enough knowledge to be independent, to be able to sell and trade for themselves, and to be able to read. Beyond the basic elementary level, he viewed education as the key to building the future leaders in society. These included teachers, doctors, politicians, etc. Grammar school was a six year curriculum where the top students from elementary school were taught with a focus on languages.
ReplyDeleteHe founded the University of Virginia with the philosophy that at the university level anyone should be able to attend and learn. This goes to his point of becoming a lifelong learner. Not everyone could receive a diploma, but anyone could attend classes. His philosophy does model today’s meritocracy. The idea that anyone has the opportunity, but only those who have demonstrated their worth and potential earn diplomas and receive prestigious positions in the market. I see this as a major shortcoming, but also an ideal that has been rooted in our society since the New World. The idea that if you work hard, then you will be rewarded with success or happiness. Those who are poor must be lazy or uneducated.
I had a hard time pulling out Mann’s aim from these articles, but after doing some further research online, Mann’s aim was to have education for all no matter your class. Thus, rich and poor would have equal access and opportunity for economic advancement. Both Jefferson and Mann saw the social impact of schooling, but Jefferson saw education as a form of self-advancement and happiness. While Mann saw education as a way to close the gap between rich and poor by giving everyone equal opportunities for advancement.
Rachel Bennett:
ReplyDeleteJefferson believed in order to be happy, one needed to become educated, because education leads to happiness. He proposed the idea to have individual districts in the state in which there would be a government official in each district for policy-making purposes, and there would also be an elementary in each district. The students attending the elementary school would be able to attend, without cost, for three years. Reading, writing, and arithmetic would be taught at each elementary school history books from different cultures would also be used. Jefferson believed it was important for students to attend a public school because education would help them in their everyday lives. For example, knowing how to use arithmetic would help them purchase goods, figure out their taxes, and many other important tasks. Knowledge of history would be important for the students to know when elected officials were up to no good. Jefferson believed he could identify future leaders after they had completed their three years of education. Once students had completed three years at an elementary school, some would be chosen to continue their education at a grammar school, and then move on to a university to continue their studies.
Mann believed having a public school would allow every person to become equal. He believed that poverty and crime would decline as a result of people becoming educated. He and Jefferson both believed education should be part of every American child’s life and being educated has so many positive outcomes. I believe Jefferson’s aims were a little higher than Mann’s aims were. Jefferson had completely thought out the concept of districts and his ladder of education (elementary, grammar, university, lifelong learning). I enjoyed reading these articles because it was great to see how education has been important to people for many, many years.
Lindsay Meredith
ReplyDeleteJefferson saw education as how you became a living, functioning member of society. He believed it was a basic necessity that most everyone should be privy to. Education was a way to prep the American citizens to be good, contributing citizens. Jefferson included about everyone in his idea for education. However the duration amongst people was drastic. If you were black, female or poor you could not carry on beyond a basic elementary education, but I guess at least you got that?
I believe Jefferson's ideals are what our society strives for in education. Available to all and at no cost. Mann's ideals are more of where we land when we aim for Jefferson. Education for all but not exactly happiness and development of good, participating citizens. We though fall short of Mann's ideals, maybe if we can just achieve that we can then work to Jefferson's with a more modified approach to length and openness for all.
Marci Bennett
ReplyDeleteJefferson’s vision of education manifests in four stages; elementary, grammar, university, and lifelong learning. At the elementary level children would have access to three years of free education. These years provided a “screening” to identify future leaders and those fit to proceed with their education. The second level is grammar school. This is a boarding school that prepared students to attend university, with a great focus on language. After grammar school was university where students were given the opportunity to attend lectures/classes at their choosing and with which they thought would be helpful in, “improving the condition of his mind”. Lastly, lifelong education, Jefferson believed was the purpose for all the other levels of education.
Jefferson believed that the mind was an empty vessel that needed to be filled and that memory, reason, and imagination were three components that made up the brain. He believed that these three components needed to be exercised in order to develop. It appears that he believes that each level of education is to prepare for the next level and in the end to lead to lifelong learning.
Jefferson’s plan presents as an opportunity to all citizen, but upon closer examination at the university level students can attend classes, but only get a diploma if they reach a certain level of competency. I think in many ways Jeffersons plan mimics out current education system, they idea that students are given access to education, but without providing a plethora of options or supports only the “fittest” will receive a diploma/completion.
Lindsy Wyatt
ReplyDeleteOverall, I saw a link between Jefferson's education plan and natural selection. It seems that his ultimate goal was to create individuals who could be responsible for running the country or being involved with government. His ideas about free education for three years seemed acceptable, but afterwards obtaining an education seemed to be more of a competition. Only the brightest students or richest students would be able to continue their studies. This very closely resembles the type of structure that the American education system follows today. Basically, only the strong survive. There aren't many options given to those students who may struggle or be stuck in the position of not being able to afford a higher education.
Mann's take on education went in a completely different direction from Jefferson's. Mann believed in equality for all. He saw education as something that should be accessible for everyone. However, they did both agree that children should have access to education. Mann's perspective just lacked the idea of natural selection that was linked with Jefferson.
Ciara Piñero
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson saw education as a means to create good and productive citizens. He deemed reading and arithmetic necessary for all "free" individuals in order to allow them to read laws and government announcements and things, and use arithmetic for buying and selling the goods they needed or farmed. Jefferson also saw a need for history to be taught so citizens on the present time could make education decisions on what and how to govern themselves (education created autonomy and the ability for citizens to self govern within their local wards which would then take some of the power and control from the central government.) I don't know if Jefferson was wrong about his ideas of the purpose of education, but I don't think he saw the whole picture, especially when it came to the importance of education of women (as something that was necessary past 3 years or the household) and non-free individuals.
Mann, somewhat like Jefferson, believed in education for the masses no matter socioeconomic backgrounds. Jefferson focused on simple education for all, but failed to REALLY further the education of the poor and less fortunate (including women and slaves) which only made the difference between rich and poor more apparent and gave them the opportunities to advance in the world of TJ. Whereas Mann's ideas of education encompasses more people, and attempted to bring the differences of the classes together and provide opportunities for education and further self advancement to more people, not just the rich and well off white men of the time.
Sarah Lisk:
ReplyDeleteJefferson’s plan for public education was primarily to secure and prepare future leaders of the states. While education should be free to all youth, boys and girls alike, it should only be required alongside a three-year curriculum, instilling basic yet well-rounded knowledge to those to carry on a productive life. However, those (boys) that excelled at the top of their classes would be ushered into opportunities for advanced learning and grooming, eliminating students along the way in order to maintain a rank of only the brightest to pursue higher education outlets at the cost of the state.
One of the obvious shortcomings of this arrangement eliminated the opportunities for girls to advance because of the position of women during Jefferson’s era. Additionally, because of the manner in which students were eliminated, taking only the most academically strong boys, one from each school, ignored the possibility of students who may have surpassed competing students from other schools. Thus, was the best crop, as determined by Jefferson’s system, truly the most academically strong as he proposed? Jefferson evidently believed in providing free education to all, supported by his many bills and his support for opportunities for life-long self-sustaining learning. While his pillars may be a little biased and over-enthused, there is merit behind his aims. It’s interesting to see how many of his proposals have come full-circle, particularly his emphasis on education in the field of science while we are now seeing a greater push for incorporation of STEM lessons in today’s classrooms.
Thomas Jefferson viewed education as a crucial component of his political theory. Public education was necessary for the preservation of republican government. He also asserted that knowledge could be tied to power, safety, and happiness. His plan would have districts with a governing body that would oversee the schools in their district.
ReplyDeleteIn his plan for public education, every free person would attain a free, basic education in three years from the elementary school. This “education for life” focused on reading, writing, and common arithmetic. It would provide the skills for daily life – purchasing and selling goods, determining taxes, and communicating with others. Elementary schools served as an initial screening process for identifying future leaders. After elementary school, males could continue on to grammar school at their own expense. Each elementary school would elect one scholarship student to continue on to grammar school at the expense of the government. From the grammar schools, local leaders for business, transportation, surveying, and the militia would emerge. After grammar school, an even more select group, the aristoi, would move on to the university education. University education prepared students to become the legislators, governors, and jurists providing governmental leadership.
Like Jefferson, Mann asserted that knowledge is power. Where Jefferson viewed education as a means for identifying future political leaders and preserving the natural aristocracy, Mann’s primary aim for public education was to foster a more equal playing field for the mass population. Mann’s plan for education would allow for changes in the social class system by providing an education to all, regardless of wealth and status.
Erin Casey
Leily Geng
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson believed that education was part of the human pursuit of happiness as well as key to making sure the republican government he had helped create stayed intact. But his plan for education also outlined a practical purpose for education. In his vision, elementary schools would provide free education for three years. They would teach students reading, writing, and common arithmetic. The common arithmetic that people would be taught, for example, would enable them to figure out taxes, calculate the cost of goods and other interactions that are common to an agrarian society. And girls should, in his opinion, should be educated so that they could educate their own daughters or even take over the responsibilities that the husband would normally be in charge of if he passed away. In the end, education, for Thomas Jefferson, had one main purpose, which was to make sure that society could maintain itself, from the people living their everyday lives to the newly formed republican government.
I wasn’t sure about Mann’s perspective from the article but looking at some of the other posts, I see that Mann’s aim was for education to be available to people no matter what class and Jefferson didn’t see it that way. The first three years of elementary school would only be available to free people. In addition, Jefferson’s plan was for the majority of those who entered grammar school to pay for tuition. Only a select number of scholarship students would be allowed to continue further. So it does seem like in Jefferson’s system that those with money get more opportunity. Or at least they won’t have to worry about having a door slammed in their face.
Charissa Friske
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson saw the role of education was knowledge and that knowledge was a key to happiness. He saw it as a means to create productive citizens and teach them the basic needs to function as a member of society. He has four main tiers of education: elementary school, grammar school, the university, and lifelong learning. He wanted to give three free years of schooling to “free individuals” to teach them basic things to from reading, writing, and common arithmetic to help them read laws, government announcements, help calculate the purchase of goods, sell surplus production, and help them better understand the economy. Grammar school was a paid six-year boarding school that prepared students for the university or vocations that needed more schooling. The university was open to anyone because anyone should be able to attend and learn but not everyone got diplomas. Students had to pass certain things in order to obtain that and many people focused on a particular science. He also wanted to build a library to promote self-education for everyone, especially those who couldn’t afford to attend anything other than elementary school. I liked the idea about the elementary school, but beyond that it seemed that the only people who were able to continue school were people who were wealthy and was basically a competition. It seems that only people with diplomas and work hard in school are the only ones who can be successful and be happy. What does that say about the people who couldn’t afford school, the “non-free” individuals, or the women who he didn’t really think about while he was coming up with this plan for education? It seems like only wealthy “free” men would have the opportunity to be really successful and that just doesn’t seem fair.
Mann believed in equality for all in education. Jefferson didn’t focus on equality of education for all people, he mainly focused on free simple education for a short period of time but provided very few opportunities for further education women, slaves, or people who couldn’t afford higher education. Mann saw education as something that everyone should have equal opportunity to learn and gave more opportunities for all people to advance their education, no matter your class.
Jefferson’s plan for public education (three years from elementary school) was primarily to secure the future and stability of the states, and to prepare future leaders of the nation. His plan was reminiscent of the time—select boys were offered advanced education (or grammar school) beyond basic public education. He also considers education for women, although their education was more geared toward becoming mothers and how to educate the children in the home. Although Jefferson understood one’s pursuit of happiness, it seems he was more focused on the happiness of men (again, reminiscent of the time period).
ReplyDeleteMann, like Jefferson, believed knowledge was an imperative tool to improving the future of the nation, but it seems Mann believed in a more equal-opportunity education for the masses. Luckily, we’ve attempted to model Mann over TJ.
Thomas Jefferson saw education as the foundation of future learning. How could one embark on a lifelong journey of knowledge when they couldn’t read or write? He believed that by teaching children in elementary school literacy, that the foundation for future education would be set. I think Thomas Jefferson’s views of education were very advanced, considering the alternate views of education at this period in time. As reflected in the Colonial America reading, education started out as a means to continue a heavy concentration on religion and a specific set of morals. The most well known Ivy-League schools that we know today (Harvard and Yale) were founded for the sole purpose of training religious leaders. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that everyone was entitled to a free education for 3 years at the elementary level. This idea in itself was beyond any idea proposed at the time, as education had been an opportunity set aside only for those who could afford it. Obviously from an ethical perspective Jefferson’s view on education was extremely limited for multicultural and gender populations, but from a historical perspective he included more of the population as being eligible to obtain an education than had been eligible before.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Mann’s aim of education to be a fully tax-funded public education system built off of the work of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s desire to have 3 years of public schooling was progressive, but Mann took it a step (or two) further and desired a fully funded education system. It seems that Mann was interested in education serving the purpose of democratic equality (from Labaree’s perspective) as he thought education would prepare (all) citizens for their role in a democratic society, while Thomas Jefferson thought education should give citizens knowledge on how to correctly navigate society as it was at the time (math for purchasing goods and paying taxes, writing to communicate with those far away, and reading to be able to understand communications.) Further education (grammar and university), in Jefferson’s mind, was reserved only for those who excelled ahead of all the others. He thought that by exposing everyone to at least an elementary education, people would be motivated to continue their education on their own, even if they did not “qualify” for later tiers of schooling. It was a great notion, but I find it hard to believe that those who would not attend school after the elementary level would voluntarily seek out books and libraries the way that Jefferson imagined they would. With today’s education focused primarily on social mobility, the notion of self-education by Jefferson is inconceivable (in my opinion) for the majority of the population.
Erika Morck
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson had a very systematic and purposeful approach to education. Much of his educational structure is still used today globally. Thomas Jefferson believed that education should be tiered and become more selective throughout each of those tiers. The first ‘tier’ of Jefferson’s education structure was Elementary Schools. Elementary Education was available for free for all children with the purpose to equip them with the skills they will need for daily life. If the families were financially willing, after three years in elementary school they could move their child on to the next tier, grammar school. Additionally, the most intelligent boy from each elementary school would be sent to grammar school at the expense of the public, and at the end of the first year only the top two thirds would remain on scholarship. This concept introduces Jefferson’s meritocracy based system, where only the top boys of merit were able to continue and maintain their scholarship. The purpose of the grammar school was university prep where the curriculum focused on language. The third tier of Jefferson’s education system was the university, which would produce leaders and governmental leaders. The fourth tier of Jefferson’s educational system was lifelong learning and self-education where he encourages all citizens to continue their education and feeding their mind with knowledge, a key factor, Jefferson believed, to happiness.
Jefferson viewed education as a meritocracy, where the wealthy and exceptionally intelligent would be the ones to move on to a more elite education and eventually hold governmental leadership positions. Mann believed that everyone should have equal opportunity to education regardless of class or intellectual ability.
Thomas’s plan for public education seemed to be one of the best things to come out of the education field during that time. However, one might ask, if so great then why was it never accepted. I would like to think that Jefferson was taking a futuristic approach while still keeping in mind the reality of his day. He believed that knowledge lead to the lifelong happiness. The only way to reach true happiness was to self-educate. I do believe that the two necessities can interact with each other. As far as careers go, people really want to do what they love to do. Most of us are studying an area that we truly care for and will one day make us happy to get up and go to work. However, without the proper education we could never fulfill our duties to the highest potential and gain the most satisfaction out of it.
ReplyDeleteWhile Jefferson idealized an education plan of merit and gender, Mann believed in a system that would educate ALL children of the republic. Mann held more of a democratic view on education where Jefferson held an aristocracy perspective.
These two men both strived for an education reform, the difference was in the reasoning. Mann knew what it was like to grow up in poverty or a lower class family. His education was limited due to that simple fact, and he wanted to make sure every child had the same opportunities no matter the socioeconomic status. Jefferson wanted to a more rigorous system to weave out the unfit, my personal opinion. He wanted students to gain an education as a personal achievement and satisfaction.
Olivia Horne
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson was a firm believer that through education man could achieve happiness. He devised a plan for a public education structure that involved 4 different tiers. At the first level, Elementary, Jefferson’s idea allowed for all free boys and girls attendance to school for three years free of charge. Children attending these schools would be exposed to a curriculum that would provide them with the foundational knowledge required to succeed in daily life. He believed that the education acquired at this level was enough to allow each student to continue learning on their own even if they did not move on to the next level. Following Elementary was Grammar School, which was attended by what was decided to be the brightest from the elementary levels. If students made it past grammar school they were able to attend university, where Jefferson’s ideas went against the norms of the time. He proposed a University curriculum that would give students uncontrolled choice over their education. Instead of being told what classes to take, students would be allowed to attend whichever lectures they wanted, which encouraged them to be curious and to continue their education for the sake of learning. Finally, the last component of the educational structure Jefferson proposed was the idea of becoming a lifelong learner. Jefferson was an advocate of self-education, which went beyond the classroom and gave responsibility to the individual. He believed that each level of his structure provided the individual with enough knowledge to allow them to expand their learning on their own accord.
When considering the structure he developed, it is clear that Jefferson had specific purposes in mind that he hoped education would fulfill. The first being active citizenship of all individuals. At the time the nation was still young and the continuance of it would fall on the future generation. Therefore, Jefferson saw it obvious that every individual should be educated as competent citizens who would be able to advocate for their liberties and participate in the democratic society. Additionally, Jefferson felt strongly that education was the key to happiness. In the article he is quoted as saying that “development of reason, expansion of intellect, and inquiry into the mysteries of the universe were fundamental to human happiness”. I think Jefferson believed that it is human nature to want to understand and explore the world we live in and that it is not enough to merely exist within it. By giving people the tools to do this through education, you are also giving them the keys to happiness and satisfaction.
Mann, like Jefferson, believed in the importance of education to the endurance society. Jefferson structured his approach to education around giving all individuals the bare minimum needed to get by and allowing only the elite to expand their knowledge. In contrast, Mann encouraged public education for all individuals, not just a select group. He believed that through a structured education system all children would receive a common learning experience.
Madison here,
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of value in Jefferson’s plan for education, specifically his ideas of bringing education policy closer to home and the formation of districts. I often find it frustrating that government policy trickles down and effects areas that are so different from others. I find it unproductive to be a part of school systems where I don’t know the person deciding what curriculum is most important, what testing strategies are most effective and how much money a school should be given. Without Jefferson’s ideas of districting and decentralization of government, I can only imagine how little of a voice local towns and districts would have when it comes to the needs of their public schools and students.
Most refreshing is Jefferson’s emphasis on life-long learning. His purpose of education feels like a true endeavor of enriching the mind and therefore the life of an individual. He seems to address that not all learners need attend grammar school and universities, but in some capacity public education needs to instill in us all a desire to always inquire and further our understanding of the world we live in. At a time when America was still developing industrially and economically, I find it inspiring that Jefferson addresses vocational, practical needs like trade and production, but holds even higher the need for us all to pursue knowledge in order to pursue happiness, no matter our occupational ambitions.
In comparison to Mann’s aims, both seem to emphasize that education should be available to all and that lifelong learning should continue for each citizen, no matter their schooling achievements or occupational pursuits. However, Jefferson does seem to suggest that not everyone should be handed a diploma and a chance for continued learning. Jefferson emphasizes the American spirit of working hard to get ahead with his ideas of advancement, scholarships and strict, academic weeding out processes. This identification of intellects and future leaders feels reminiscent of today’s meritocracy and very different from Mann’s ideals of lessening the gap between those who are less well-off and more well off and the traditional levels of academic achievement that fall into these social classes.
Elise Matsuura
ReplyDeleteJefferson saw education as a way to create well-informed citizens that could make decisions in government for the benefit of the republic. Jefferson wanted to create schools where all children, (white) males and females, could come free of charge for three years. His plan was to create districts with one elementary school. This school was to act as a unit of local government. Schools in these districts would teach life skills such as standard arithmetic and reading. Once a student graduated form the elementary school they would go to grammar schools if they could afford it. If not, a male student with superb achievement would be labeled the “boy genius” and sent to grammar school to then be prepared for the university. His plan for university education was based off of meritocracy of the individual. The university would serve as an institution where students would come to listen to improve the condition of their minds, very much against the Harvard model of the university. After the university self-education or lifelong learning was to be continued by the individual.
I feel that Jefferson’s aims were very progressive for his time period. While he does not explicitly state that we must educate our slaves, he does mention slaves in his documents and even gives instruction for the slaves. Jefferson was a very foreword thinking individual, realizing that one day slaves might be set free and, if that is the case, then he wanted to have input as to how they would be educated. Despite the fact that he was progressive in some aspects of his plan, one of the shortcomings is the idea that only one boy from each elementary school who was deemed a “genius” would be allowed to attend grammar school free of charge. Because America was an agrarian society at the time, I do understand why Jefferson leaves out the fact that education should be free and accessible to all. However, without having schools as a free institution, it only allows those who are granted privilege and opportunity.
Julianna Lopez
ReplyDeleteI really liked Jefferson’s perspective about “lifelong learning” and how he equated education to happiness. In many ways I really agree with that. Overall I believe he had some very progressive ideas for the time, and I can respect that he tried to include some schooling for women in his plan, given the time period. I really enjoyed that he considered his daughter’s opinion in this process as well. Obviously his aims are not perfect, and although his plan presents an equal opportunity for schooling, it is mainly the children of wealthy and privilege that can benefit from his system. Jefferson and Mann both agreed that school should be free and accessible to young children, but after this is where their ideas depart.
Jefferson imagined that the select who were worthy would continue their education and go on to hold important positions in society. Jefferson wanted to identify the “smartest” of society and advance them forward. Mann on the other hand, sought equal schooling opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. Mann believed that schooling could help the poor out of poverty and better society by doing so. Jefferson wanted to work towards a future where the smartest people led the country; Mann wanted country where everyone was educated.
Mann obviously had the more inclusive and progressive perspective, so because of that I agree with him more. Despite my opinions, it seems that although Jefferson’s plan was never fully realized, his ideas seem to be present in our society, especially when considering American Universities (as many of my classmates have pointed out).
Erin Luhmann
ReplyDeleteWhen reading over Thomas Jefferson’s ideas for education in the late 1700’s and into the early 1800’s I was actually surprised about how much emphasis was put on such subject back then. Not having much of a background concerning this time period I guess I was ignorant to the fact of how much education was actually integrated into society during this time. Jefferson’s first ideas for public education stated that people should be able to govern themselves. He gave much reliance on the individual to be able to keep things straight and correct things when necessary. Progressing into the early 1800’s Jefferson’s plan for education, The Bill For General Diffusion of Knowledge deepened into the development of a three-part system. All students boys and girls would attend a public school for only three years. After this three year public education was finished, only a select number of male students who were deemed advanced would move on to a higher education opportunity. Lastly, for only the smartest the option to attend The College of William and Mary was given to one boy from each district every two years. In a way I see resemblance of our current public school system, primary, secondary and higher education opportunities although back then it was not provided for female students. An interesting piece of information I received from the articles regarding Jefferson’s plans for education concerned the fact that Jefferson even had a system in place for educating the slaves. Although it did not make it through legislation I thought it was really interesting that such an idea was put in place at some time.
I believe that Jefferson’s plan for education ranged from providing all students with some basic knowledge during the three year public school while then offering only further education for select male students to become legislators or government officials. For the women, after the three year of schooling was finished, Jefferson believed that education for them should include how to become effective mothers and so on. Clearly, not much emphasis was put on the education of women rather preparing a few individuals to have the opportunity to advance to The College of William and Mary.
After looking up Mann and reading articles regarding his stance on education, he was similar to Jefferson in the fact that education for the people was an important factor of belief. In comparison, Horace Mann included all individuals in his education beliefs for “rich and poor alike” to create the idea of social harmony (King.) Horace Mann seemed to think that if a proper education system was put in place, the decline of poverty, crime and violence would occur. Mann seemed to be a strong advocate for public education and the positive outcomes that result from it, and I am surprised we haven’t learned about him in any of our courses so far. This individual seems to have made a lasting impact on education and his ideas are still recalled today.
https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/mann.html
David Reams
ReplyDeleteSince I knew that Thomas Jefferson had founded the University of Virginia, I also knew that he had been an advocate for education. I confess, however, that I had not been aware of just how strong of a proponent of learning in general, and public education in particular, he had been. Certainly from the articles it can be gleaned that Jefferson had given a lot of thought to how he believed knowledge should be cultivated, felt that socioeconomic status should not deter the best and brightest from being able to excel, and saw benefits that a functional education system could provide both individuals and society at large. Providing free schooling for all children, male and female, was a novel and controversial idea in his day, even if it was only for three years of elementary education and "all children" really only meant "all free children." I like the idea that the grammar schools would provide some (male) students who would otherwise been unable to afford it with additional free education, but I am not a fan of the level of competition (and corruption) that such a system would inevitably create in a quest to find our "future leaders." The desire to find diamonds in the rough to help build and sustain a meritocracy, however, appears to be one of the major goals of Jefferson's plan. This is apparently in contrast to Horace Mann, who, from what I found about him online, believed in free and equal education for all students through the age of 16. Both he and Jefferson saw the advantages of a public who could read and write, but Mann also believed that school could help students by teaching morality and building character. If I had to guess, I would say Jefferson's ideas are most directly aligned with the goal of social mobility while Mann's were closer to the goal of democratic equality.
Amy:
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest, I think Jefferson’s plan seems to fit the economic and political needs and positions created in that society, despite being very limited in some respects, especially for women. Still, for the roles that the general public played in society, Jefferson’s plan, from the little I’ve read seems it would have educated everyone sufficiently for their respective roles. However, his “wholly intellectual curriculum” (Tozer) seems somewhat counter to the way society was run in the colonies of the New World, being mainly a farming society, although I suppose, like Rury talks about, these skills for actual living and providing for your family came from the more informal education that happened in the home, through apprenticeships, etc. I do appreciate that he thought that everyone was entitled to something beyond this knowledge, beyond what was just necessary for survival, to be literate, to have knowledge about mathematics, and politics, at least enough to make informative decisions about their local politicians and who to vote for.
His idea that one of the main purposes of education is the pursuit of happiness, as he viewed knowledge to be equal happiness, is one I do not wholly disagree with. I think that acquiring knowledge, “developing reason… and inquiring into the mysteries of the universe” (Tozer) are things that can bring much satisfaction. However I think it solely depends on one’s lifestyle and purpose in life, and I feel fairly certain that many of the general population of his time probably did not view knowledge in this same way, but just as a means to get by in life.
I also think that the fourth part in his educational structure, being the goal to promote lifelong learning, is a wonderful idea, but very idealistic. This was supposed to be the main way to pursue happiness, through being given just enough knowledge to gain a hunger and desire for more knowledge. However, this knowledge was not equally accessible to everyone, and I wonder how Jefferson really thought that his plan and ideas could promote a strong desire for knowledge, when the education and knowledge that was accessible to most people really only gave a select few the ability to move up to a better place in life in what was really a system of meritocracy, only giving a few the chance at leadership, status, stability, and what many would consider happiness. The general education available to all at the elementary level of his plan is not consistent with the select and discriminatory allocation of education that could result in a higher status and chance at a better life later on. And so, I believe his ideas that the pursuit of knowledge equals the pursuit of happiness, are really very selective to those that started off in a position in life where this was made available to them, and not something that was as equally accessible as he made it seem.
When it comes to Mann’s ideas, they differ from Jefferson’s ideas in a very foundational way. While their plans start off together wanting to give free education to the public, they quickly diverge as Mann’s principles of education continue on this path, calling for education to be available across the board, for it to be available to those of different backgrounds, and for it to be a high level education for all, through the teaching of well-trained professionals. Jefferson’s ideas are set up to cause a hierarchy, allowing only those with the means and exceptional intellect to gain power, and keep the rest at a lower basic level of power, while claiming that the minimal education provided to them is supposed to give them a desire for lifelong education and a pursuit of knowledge, when really the system is set up for that knowledge to keep them in their position under those with real power and knowledge. One of Mann’s principles says that citizens cannot maintain both ignorance and freedom, and I feel that when it comes down to it, this is the very thing Jefferson was trying to create.
Kasey McDonald:
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson's plan for education seemed to be a way to weed out the "geniuses" and get them prepared to acquire leadership roles, because the students who are not "geniuses" wouldn't be able to handle the leadership roles in society. The way a student is determined smart enough isn't exactly fair, especially when the type of instruction and learning going on (in the different levels of schools) probably wasn't meeting the different needs of all the students. I did however, like that he took into account the students who came from poor families and wouldn't be able to afford grammar school or university, and so he allowed them to gain a scholarship if they worked hard to prove they were worthy of continued education. But sometimes a student can work hard, and do their best, but the school or teacher isn't meeting their needs as a learner. His vision for students moving throughout the tiers of education seem simple enough, but the ideas are very black and white. You are either smart enough or you aren't, which doesn't leave much room for being an individualist.
I want to point out that I do think it was great of him to explain the importance of all children being able to attend elementary school for three years, for free, because the lessons they learned in arithmetic, reading, and history would have helped them more easily participate in society/ being an active citizen. It's one step closer to people being able to attain more knowledge!
Shane Perry
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson's plans seem to be meritocratic in teleology, but they also have the components of more democratic ideals; more clearly, there is the thought that the best (meaning those endowed with the best intelligence, creativity, capacity for learning, etc., as well as the ones who have 'earned' it) will truly bubble towards the top and that people will naturally fall in line with their capacities and efforts, while there is also a more democratic ideal about the right of all free men to a basic education that serves lifelong purposes and purposes of democratic proliferation and maintenance (by the common man). The meritocratic ideal (the former purpose) also serves as an invitation to a upward movement within the structure, thereby making the structure a private good for the consumer, because of the stated intention of those that achieve higher success becoming more powerful when compared to those who only made it to lower rungs; the self-selection of lectures in the university does temper this argument, however. By my assessment, there are elements of Labaree's three purposes within even the most fundamental conceptions of the education system, as seen in Thomas Jefferson's plan. And for a man that so valued the perfectibility of man and believed in man as a relatively blank slate, it is a baffling structure, because it would seem that the democracy would function better if all were well-learned and not simply basically informed.
That is Thomas Jefferson's system for those that are allowed into it; however, the system within the context of demographics is also enlightening (no pun intended). Blacks were excluded likely out of necessity, because, as a policy proposal, it would be inconceivable at that time to include non-freemen as being as capable as whites or that education is a right applicable to all men (humans). And, more oddly perhaps, there is the explicit limitation of women in a way that reflected the glaringly patriarchal structure of the time. In this way, the system is clearly not meritocratic; it excludes over half of the population. I cannot say that I am a Jefferson scholar, but it does seem odd to me that a man of such high-enlightenment idealism would be so blunt and realistic in his plan without feeling some mixed feelings about it; I wonder if he wanted to include black people, women, and other groups, or if he truly deeply held white male supremacy as a high ideal.